The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
21-7508•Omeako L. Brisbon v. Eric Hooks
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7508
OMEAKO L. BRISBON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIC HOOKS,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; WARDEN J. SAPPER; VICTOR LOCKLEAR;
WARDEN JOHN HERRING,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:20-hc-02211-BO)
Submitted: March 29, 2022 Decided: April 1, 2022
Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Omeako L. Brisbon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Omeako L. Brisbon, a North Carolina inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely Brisbon’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler,
565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year
statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will
not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that
the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez, 565
U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brisbon has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.